politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
No - quite the opposite. Using the term to refer to all supporters of a Jewish state without distinguishing between those who wish to cooperate and those who simply intend to forcibly impose their wills "alienates the very people who might be able to make peace."
The simple and unavoidable fact of the matter is that the state of Israel existing on part of the land it occupied in antiquity is a fait accompli. It's not a question of whether or not such a state should exist, because one already does. And that's not a pholosophical point - it's a practical one. It's not that its existence somehow justifies everything about its past (it rather clearly does not) - it's simply that its existence is a fact.
The only pertinent questions are how things should work going forward, and that's exactly the context in which Jews who support its existence but call for cooperation with its neighbors and most notably with Palestinians are arguably the best possible allies we can have. No matter how determined and petulant they might be, those who call for Israel's dissolution will never succeed, so the only question is whether those who oppose them will be rational actors who wish to settle the conflict through cooperation or vicious demagogues who intend to settle it through murder and pillage.
I disagree intensely. Using the language "anti-zionist" effectively tells those people that the end goal is to simply kill off the entire Jewish population of Israel, and is utterly alienating, and guarantees that you will never have significant support from them.
Then... don't use that language.
I don't think we disagree fundamentally. Somehow, and I didn't see it coming (but probably should have), this has devolved into what you interpret as a dispute about a label.
For the record, I think labels are impediments to clear thought, and that there are few things that humans do that are more irrational, destructive, asinine and plain old stupid than substituting labels for ideas.
And I should've caught that that was where this was headed, and clarified to prevent it.
My point was never about the label "zionist" specifically. It was a broader point about the perception of the proper grouping of people.
Proactively grouping those Jews who support the state of Israel and wish to cooperate with its neighbors to ensure its survival with those who support the state of Israel and intend to murder and pillage in order to forcibly impose its existence on everyone else with no regard for their own desires is rather obviously not only contrary to simple human decency, but to logic and reason as well. It's wrong morally AND logically AND strategically.
I could not possibly care less what labels, if any, anyone might wish to use to distinguish between groupings. That doesn't matter in the slightest, or more precisely shouldn't matter in the slightest. The only thing that does matter is where the divisions are seen to lie. And that's a very simple matter - are we going to divide between Jews and non-Jews? Or are we going to divide between reasonable people who seek peace and raging assholes who seek war?
I don't use that language. Quite deliberately.
I'm making the point because I see others using it in a way that basically guarantees that the Palestinians will continue to suffer.